Jonah Onyebuchi Eze V. Federal Republic Of Nigeria (1987)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

ESO, J.S.C. 

The point involved in this appeal has been considerably narrowed down, especially by the briefs filed by both learned counsel for the Appellant and the Respondent. However, I would have to state the facts relevant to the issue now before this court.

The issue itself is whether jurisdiction lies in the Federal High Court or the State High Court in regard to the case against the Appellant, Jonah Eze. There were four counts charge against the Appellant, but only two are relevant for the purpose of this appeal. They are counts 3 and 4 and they read as follows-

“COUNT 3:

That you, Jonah Onyebuchi Eze of No. 18 Obun Eko Street, Lagos, in the Lagos Judicial Division on or about the 8th day of September, 1980 at Apapa Port, Lagos, knowingly delivered to a Customs Officer a document produced for the purposes of Customs to wit, a duplicate copy of an expired firearms import licence which is untrue in a material particular and thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 142(1)(a) and punishable under Section 142(3) of the Customs and Excise Management Act No. 55 of 1958.

COUNT 4:

That you, Jonah Onyebuchi Eze of No. 18, Obun Eta Street, Lagos, in the Lagos Judicial Division on or about the 8th day of December, 1980 at Tin Can Island Port, Lagos, knowingly delivered to a Customs Officer a document produced for the purposes of Customs to wit, a duplicate copy of an expired firearms import licence which is untrue in a material particular and thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 142(1)(a)and punishable under Section 142(3) of the Customs and Excise Management Act No. 55 of 1958.”

The charge which, as I said, contained four counts was laid before the Federal High Court, Lagos. However, after protracted hearing and applications, this Court, in the interim, and on 10th June 1983, had given its decision in the case of Bronik Motors v. Wema Bank. As a result of that decision the Complainant, who is now the Respondent in this Court, applied through learned counsel, Mrs Folami, for a transfer of counts 1 and 2 to the Lagos State High Court on the ground of lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Federal High Court. On 24th February, 1984, the learned Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Anyaegbunam C.J., struck out counts 1 and 2. He said-

“I have not, however, found any rule in the Lagos State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 1972 which empowers a transfer from the Lagos State High Court to another State High Court. Furthermore, from the contention of learned Senior State Counsel, Mrs Ekpo, it is clear to me that they did not wish to continue with counts 1 and 2. I would therefore strike them out.”

As regards counts 3 and 4, which I have set out supra, the learned Chief Judge held-

“The next points to be decided are in respect of counts 3 and 4 in my earlier ruling on these two counts, I held that I had jurisdiction. I referred to section 142 of C.E.M.A. with particular reference to marginal notes – “untrue declaration, etc,” I said, among other things that:-

“The title of CEMA referred to above is an important part of the Act. It is useful in ascertaining the general scope of the Act. See Jones v. Sherrington (1908) 2 K.B. 539 and Fisher v. Raven (1964) A.C. 210. I have no doubt in my mind that this court has jurisdiction to deal with counts 3 and 4 of the Charge. The documents in question must surely have something to do with duty. After all what is the purpose of submitting these documents to the Customs It is either to show that duty is payable or that the goods are duty free.”

What is the meaning of ‘customs and Excise duties’ as contained in Section 7(1)(b )(ii) of the Federal High Court Act 1973. In Earl Jowitt Dictionary of English Law, customs’ is defined among other things as ‘duties charged upon commodities on their importation into or exportation out of the country.’ In words and Phrases Legally Defined Second Edition, ‘Customs duties’ are defined as ‘Duties of Customs or customs duties are duties or tolls payable upon goods imported into this country, as opposed to excise duties, which are payable upon articles produced and consumed at name.’

It is clear, therefore, that section 7(1)(b)(ii) is, to my mind, within the jurisdiction of this court. I have already said so and I have not heard any new argument to make me shift my ground.